I’m sure we’ve done this before, but why not do it again? We all have our little pet peeves about English. Mine:
[ol]
[li]There’s no singular gender-neutral third-person pronoun. Even when you don’t know the gender, you have to choose one or the other (“Every person will have [his][her] day in court.”). I’m a strong advocate for using “their” as a gender-neutral possessive pronoun, even when referring to a single person.[/li][li]“Bi-weekly” can mean either “every two weeks” or “twice a week.” I suggest “di-weekly” for “twice a week.”[/li][li]I find nothing wrong with using “Man” as a synonym for the human race and think anyone shunning that word is being way too politically correct. Furthermore, I have no issue with B.C./A.D. as an era label, since Christ’s birth was what our calendar was based on to begin with (even if it is four or so years off).[/li][li]For some reason, it bothers me that the number 40 is spelled “forty” and not “fourty.”[/li][li]Bring back the words “fortnight,” “thrice,” “betwixt,” and maybe even “thou” as a formal pronoun. There was nothing wrong with those words![/li][/ol]
So, what are yours?
Every person will have their day in court.
What about “fortnightly” and “twice a week”?
Especially when it is “fourteen”.
As far as I’m concerned, “fortnight” and “thrice” never went away.
There’s no “proper” second person plural, and the invented ones are “improper” (y’all, yinz for you Pittsburghers, etc.) Y’all fills a real need in English and I don’t see what’s wrong with it.
I also hate the number kludge above - “everyone will have their day in court” is absolutely incorrect and my high school English teacher would kick your ass for it. “everyone will have his day in court” is probably factually incorrect. I have no personal problem with “his” and “man” and such used in the general sense at all (seriously, chairperson? chairwoman? why?) but some people obviously do. It’s silly.
Nitpick: “thou” is actually the informal pronoun, similar to the German ‘du’ or the Spanish ‘tu’. We’re all being very formal and polite with each other when we say ‘you’!
I agree with you on the BC/BCE-AD/CE thing. Unless you’re also going to find a culturally neutral starting point for our calendar, changing the names or the eras is meaningless.
Fortnight and thrice are in common usage in the UK (the former more than the latter).
FTR, thou was actually the informal second-person singular pronoun when in use. You was the formal one. Thou is still used in bits of Northern England, too - search for the show Last of the Summer Wine on YouTube.
ETA: Beaten to the punch on thou. shakes fist at ONM
I tell my students that in order to avoid the his/her/their issues, I refer to the singular gender-neutral third-person as “it.” They’ll just have to deal with hearing humans referred to as objects.
And y’all is a perfectly useful second-person plural vernacular, and I’ll give it up when you pry it from my cold, dead lips.
My peeve: If warmth is a word, then coolth should be, and so it shall be, and I’m using it.
There aren’t any good options for “Aren’t I?” That just ain’t right. It’s “proper,” I guess, just not “right.”
So far as I’m concerned ‘they’ is the correct gender-neutral third person singular; with a centuries old history of usage. Anyone objecting to ‘they’ used in this way can safely be ignored (so long as they are not marking my work or signing my paycheque)
I’d use ‘semi-weekly’ if I wanted to express ‘twice a week’ and ‘bi-weekly’ strictly for ‘every two weeks’. I’m not sure how universal this usage is.
Your high school English teacher should shut their hole. The singular “they” has been used for centuries by the very lions of English literature.
It may not be universal, but that’s the correct meaning.
I’m right behind y’all on the gender neutral words.
My peeves are people who misuse y’all (it’s a contraction of you all, and it’s second person plural) and foreign language plurals, like fora for forums and syllabi and all that stuff. Plurals should be formed with either sticking an “s” at the end of a word, or an “es”, and that’s that. English is quite irregular enough.
Bi-monthly can mean twice a month or every other month. Grrrrr.
There are no sex-specific words for cousin. There are no family-specific words for any relatives, just “My Uncle Bob on my Mom’s side” and the like.
It annoys me that people who think this apparently never heard of the words “a” and “the.” “Everyone should have a day in court” is gramatically court.
“Every parent should sit next to their child” is not the same as “Every parent should sit next to a child.”
Also add “lest” to that list. I find myself wanting to use it ever since I learned about it (from Shakespeare, I think).
Also, bring back the proper, unique meaning of “unique”, which seems to be morphing into a synonym for “rare”. The word describes a useful concept, but there is no replacement ready to deploy once it’s completely corrupted.
Um, wouldn’t “paternal uncle” and “maternal uncle” be the specific forms of these words?
I’ve heard that argument before, but I think it misses the point. I don’t believe anyone is honestly arguing that there’s no way to write a given sentence such that the need to use a pronoun at all is avoided, just that having one would avoid unnecessarily clunky (or otherwise sub-optimal) sentence structures.
Consider the sentence “He or she has a dog,” with the goal of rewriting it to get rid of the “he or she” part. I wrote that sentence specifically to avoid the tricks people often use to circumvent the problem that the no-gender-neutral-third-person-pronoun argument poses…devoid of context, you can’t rewrite it using a more specific noun (“He or she must possess strong HTML skills” —> “The applicant must possess strong HTML skills”), and absent the possessive form, “a” and “the” are no help. If you’re determined to get rid of “he or she”, the only option left is to change it to something ridiculous like “A person of indiscriminate gender has a dog.” This is the source of these complaints.
But that’s not my complaint. 
Mine is the lack of an easy way to make a negative declarative statement that definitively includes the possibility of the positive case. In other words, the difference between “I cannot eat apples”, and “I can not eat apples” (but I can also eat them). To say the latter unambiguously, there are many ways you could phrase it, but all of them are overly cumbersome for the sentiment you’re trying to express: “I am capable of not eating apples,” “I can decide not to eat apples if I choose,” and so on. (Nitpickers may note that the simple sentence “I can eat apples” is logically equivalent in this case, but that doesn’t apply if you imagine a situation with more than two possible truth values.)
I’d lamented this long before the problem arose in this thread, but it’s a particularly good example of why we need this.
Interesting. Here language matches science. Science-wise, cold is the absence of heat. So it makes sense that “coolth” doesn’t exist as a word.
How would you use “coolth” in a sentence?
Those are two words each.